Experimental study shows distraction effectively lowers snack energy intake in children, highlighting parental techniques' importance.
Children's avid eating behaviour is characterised by frequent snacking and food responsiveness. Parents need evidence-based advice on specific feeding practices, such as distraction techniques and portioning, that can be used to reduce children's intake of high energy-dense snacks. This experimental laboratory study tested the effectiveness of these feeding practices. Parents and children (3-5 years; N = 129) who were identified as having an avid or typical eating profile were recruited and randomly allocated to one of three conditions. Following a standardised meal, children's energy intake (kcal) in the absence of hunger was assessed. While children had access to a snack buffet, parents were asked to use one of the following feeding practices: (1) Distract - using distraction techniques to delay children's snack intake; (2) Portion - allowing children to have snacks from pre-portioned pots; or (3) Control - allowing children to eat the type and number of snacks that their child wanted to. Children in the distraction condition consumed significantly less energy from snacks (M = 54.44 kcal, SD = 73.30) compared to children in the portion (M = 103.89 kcal, SD = 91.33, p < .001) or control condition (M = 115.92 kcal, SD = 90.55, p < .001). Energy intake in the portion and control conditions was not significantly different (p > .05). Children with avid versus typical eating profiles did not differ significantly in energy intake (p > .05). Parental use of distraction techniques may be effective for reducing children's intake of high energy-dense snacks and could be recommended for use to support the development of children's healthy eating. Research to examine the effectiveness of distraction in real-world settings is now needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edwards et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: